The car insurance industry needs a shakeup. There is disgusting bias by insurance companies. It is like the police policing the police. Why are insurance companies allowed to judge blame in accidents when a particular outcome benefits them?
It is absurd to leave decision making in the hands of an involved party, namely insurance companies. An aggrieved party can appeal to the insurance company itself. The outcome is certain - the appeal will be turned down. Apart from the Small Claims Tribunal there is not much an insured person can do.
If a party is uninsured an insurance company will write a letter to the insured person saying that due to insufficient evidence he/she is at fault for the accident: thus, the insurer keeps the $600 excess. This is a policy planned and carried out by insurance companies to rob their customers.
Very little is recovered from uninsured drivers. This is because few respond to letters from insurance companies. For a phone conversation to be used as evidence an insurer must announce that the call will be recorded and anything said will be used as evidence. If an uninsured driver hears this he will obviously put the phone down.
Basically, if you are an insured driver the insurance company judges you guilty until proven innocent. This is not how common law works. Innocence is the assumed initial state of a suspected individual in common law. It is surprising that so many people accept the existing state of affairs and do not challenge the current situation.
One of the worst offenders for the prevalent fraud is the National Roads and Motorists' Association (NRMA insurance). The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ) is not far behind. But all insurance companies continue with this fraudulent behaviour.
I will be setting up a website where frustrated and dare I say angry insured drivers can vent their feelings on how they have been robbed. Watch this space!
✴ Law by Ty Buchanan ✴